The Amorium Project: Research and Excavation in 2000
C. S. LIGHTFOOT, Y. MERGEN, B. Y. OLCAY, AND J. WITTE-ORR
INTRODUCTION
o fieldwork was carried out in 1999. In-
N stead, efforts focused on research and
publication, while plans and preparations were
made to resume work at the site in the following
year.1 During the course of the 2000 season,
which lasted for five weeks from 7 August
through 7 September, considerable progress
was made in several important ways.2 Owing to
1
For a brief report on 1999, see C. S. Lightfoot, “The
Amorium Excavation Project,” in G. Coulthard, ed., Ana-
tolian Archaeology: Research Reports of the British Institute of
Archaeology at Ankara [BIAA] 5 (1999 [2000]): 10. For the
2000 season, see C. S. Lightfoot, “Amorium 2000,” in
G. Coulthard, ed., Anatolian Archaeology: Research Reports of
the BIAA 6 (2000 [2001]): 10–11. Other recent publications
include C. S. Lightfoot and Y. Mergen, “Amorium 1998 Yılı
Kazı Çalışmaları,” XXI. Kazı Sonuçları, Toplantısı. Ankara,
24–28 Mayıs 1999—Ankara, vol. 2 (Ankara, 2000), 143–52;
C. S. Lightfoot, “Amorium: The History and Archaeology
of an Ancient City in the Turkish Period,” in A. Aktaş-Yasa,
ed., Uluslararası Dördüncü Türk Kültürü Kongresi (4–7 Kasım
1997, Ankara), vol. 2, Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Yayını 229
(Ankara, 2000), 79–89; and C. S. Lightfoot, “Le site d’Amo-
rium,” Dossiers d’archéologie 256 (Sept. 2000), 32–33. Refer-
ence to Amorium can also be found in E. A. Ivison, “Ur-
ban Renewal and Imperial Revival in Byzantium (730–
1025),” ByzF 26 (2000): 1–46, esp. 13–18, 27; P. I. Kuniholm,
“Dendrochronologically Dated Ottoman Monuments,” in
U. Baram and L. Carroll, eds., A Historical Archaeology of the
Ottoman Empire: Breaking New Ground (New York, 2000),
93–136 (see p. 114, no. 23); C. S. Lightfoot, “Bizans Döne-
minde Afyonkarahisar,” in İ. Küçükkurt et al., eds., Af-
yonkarahisar Kütüǧü, vol. 1, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi
Yayını 35 (Ankara, 2001), 113–24; P. Linscheid, “Early
Byzantine Textiles from Amorium, Anatolia,” Archaeological
Textiles Newsletter 32 (Spring 2001), 17–18; and R. Ouster-
hout, Master Builders of Byzantium (Princeton, N.J., 1999), 89
and fig. 56. One may also note the publication of the coin
collection of the Bolvadin Municipal Museum: R. Ashton,
C. S. Lightfoot, and A. Özme, “Ancient and Mediaeval
Coins in Bolvadin,” Anatolia Antiqua 8 (2000): 171–92.
2
The team comprised nine archaeologists, conservators,
and students, of whom seven were Turkish, one British,
and one German. Their names are Asst. Prof. Dr. Ayşe Çalık-
Ross (assistant director, University of Anatolia, Eskişehir),
the hiatus in 1999, it was necessary to carry out
essential repair and cleaning work at all of the
excavation areas across the site and at the Dig
House. Site enhancement and conservation
work included the removal of more of the spoil
heaps at the northern end of the Upper City
mound, the consolidation of the Upper City
fortification wall (first capped in 1993–94) and
the Enclosure wall (capped in 1996), and the re-
placement of the timber-framed roof (erected
in 1996) over the fresco in the south aisle of the
Lower City Church. The fresco itself was exam-
ined by Emre Eser, the field conservator, and a
condition report was prepared, while Dr. Jo-
Yalçın Mergen (archaeologist, University of Anatolia, Es-
kişehir), Asst. Prof. Dr. B. Yelda Olcay (glass specialist, Uni-
versity of Anatolia, Eskişehir), Dr. Johanna Witte-Orr
(fresco specialist), Sabri Aydal (archaeologist, Antalya Ar-
chaeological Museum), Emre Eser (student conservator,
Başkent Vocational High School, Ankara University), and
Banu Büyükgün (archaeology student, University of Ana-
tolia, Eskişehir). Visitors to the excavations included Ser-
acettin Şahin (director, Afyon Archaeological Museum),
Hatice Bilgiç (Middle East Technical University, Ankara),
Ayhan Çetin (Emirdağ High School), Özgül Gurbuz (Uni-
versity of Anatolia, Eskişehir), Nurdoğan and Zeliha Ay-
doğdu, and Petra Linscheid (Freie Universität Berlin).
The Amorium Project gratefully acknowledges the con-
tinued support of the Turkish authorities in Ankara, Afyon,
and Emirdağ, the British Institute of Archaeology at
Ankara, and Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. (on be-
half of the Trustees of Harvard University). Thanks also go
to the many friends and supporters of the Amorium Proj-
ect; they include Mrs. Brenda Lightfoot, Dr. John Casey
(University of Durham), Dr. Stanley Ireland (University of
Warwick), Prof. Thomas Drew-Bear (CNRS, France), and
Dr. Helen Evans, Dr. Marilyn Jenkins-Madina, and Dr. Car-
los A. Picón (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York). The
2000 season would not have been so successful without the
generous help of Nilgün Çevrimli (government representa-
tive, General Directorate of Monuments and Museums,
Ankara), Halil Arça (Afyon Museum), Hakan and Fahrettin
Öklü (Euro Class Car Rental, Ankara), Mehmet Söylemez
(Directorate of Monuments and Museums, Ankara), and
Zülfünar Yavuzkan (Turkish Consulate, Washington, D.C.).
280 THE AMORIUM PROJECT: RESEARCH AND EXCAVATION IN 2000
hanna Witte-Orr took the opportunity to in-
spect the panel as part of her study of the
church frescoes (see below, pp. 283–84). An-
other major development was that Sabri Aydal
(from the Antalya Museum) initiated a three-
year program to survey the whole site and so
produce a new detailed topographical and ar-
chaeological plan of Amorium. Just over half of
the site was surveyed, including the whole of
the Upper City, the Lower City Enclosure, and
the Lower City Church. Work will continue in
2001, and once complete the new site plan will
provide a systematic grid in which we will be
able to locate trenches, surviving visible re-
mains, and other important features such as the
numerous wells that are dotted around the site.
With the help of such a plan the expectation is
that a better understanding of the overall lay-
out of the city can be achieved. It may also en-
able us to make some pertinent observations on
the course of events at the siege of Amorium in
the summer of 838 by combining the new topo-
graphical data with the surviving literary ac-
counts.
THE LOWER CITY CHURCH FRESCOES
(BY JOHANNA WITTE-ORR)3
Between 1990 and 1996 a large quantity of
fresco fragments and a number of stone blocks
that had fresco fragments adhering to them
were excavated in the Lower City Church.4 The
majority of the loose fragments were found in
the eastern part of the nave and in the south
aisle; almost all of the blocks with painted plas-
ter were found in the south aisle, especially in
the central bay. Most of the fragments are small,
with a painted surface of about 2–5 cm2, but
3
I would like to thank Chris Lightfoot and Eric Ivison
for inviting me to work on the fresco fragments. The term
fresco is used here in the sense of the work of a master
painter, as opposed to wall painting as the work of an un-
trained individual. There is no indication that the paintings
are frescoes in the Italian sense of a “good fresco,” painted
on fresh plaster without an added medium. For a thorough
description of Byzantine painting methods which often in-
cluded both fresco and secco work, see D. C. Winfield,
“Middle and Later Byzantine Wall Painting Methods,” DOP
22 (1968): 74–79; M. Restle, “Maltechnik,” RBK 5 (Stutt-
gart, 1995): 1241 f, 1248 ff, 1255 f. On the technique used
in the Cappadocian cave churches, see S. Kostof, Caves of
God: Cappadocia and Its Churches (Cambridge, Mass., 1989),
150.
4
A preliminary survey and arrangement of this material
was carried out by Christine Zitrides in 1996; DOP 52
(1998): 329.
some of the fragments on the stone blocks are
larger, measuring up to 28 × 27 cm. Compara-
tively few pieces of fresco were recovered from
the remaining areas of the church, and most of
them were very small. However, two larger
fragments were also taken from walls in the
church in 1993 under the supervision of the
conservator, Karen Barker; one of them was on
wall 27 (Context A2-2), and the other was on
the nave side of the nave west wall (AM92/A1-
10). In the west bay of the south aisle, the
largest fragment of all remains in situ on the
south wall (AM96/A9-9).5
It was originally planned to group the frag-
ments by their contexts and plaster layers, and
then to try to determine what the frescoes
might have shown and what their arrangement
on the walls was. It was hoped in this way to re-
construct the church’s program of painted dec-
oration and so add more to what is already
known about the history of the building. The
results were somewhat disappointing for, de-
spite the sizable amount of fresco that was re-
covered during the excavations, it has not
proved possible to reconstruct any large panels
from the surviving fragments.6 It was found
that many gaps exist between fragment clus-
ters, while the different layers of plaster and
paint on many of the fragments presented fur-
ther difficulties. Nevertheless, some valuable
information has been obtained from the work
conducted in 2000. The preliminary results are
presented here, but further work, planned for
2001, is required before any final conclusions
can be drawn. In the second season a new ap-
proach will be adopted; the first task will be to
focus on several groups of stone blocks with re-
lated paintings, and then to try to bridge gaps
between them by working with fragments from
all plaster and paint layers at the same time.
Although Byzantine painting methods have
been documented in only a few rare cases, it
should be possible to place a fresco in relation
to others by observing the characteristic meth-
ods used by an individual painter and by com-
5
For the preliminary excavation report on this panel,
see DOP 52 (1998): 325 and fig. 3.
6
A study of the mosaic fragments found in the church
produced a similar negative result. Even if only the central
dome and/or the apse were decorated with mosaics, they
still would have taken up a very large area. The fragments
and tesserae that have been found would cover only a frac-
tion of this space.
 C. S. LIGHTFOOT ET AL.
paring them to others. Many such details (e.g.,
preliminary incised sketches or the layering of
color coats) can easily be seen on the Amorium
fragments, whereas it is much harder to see
them on intact paintings still in situ on a wall.
The observed painting methods indicate
clearly that a master painter was at work in the
church at Amorium. The detailed documenta-
tion of the painting methods could also high-
light differences between separate painting
phases, thereby making them more obvious
than a study of the different layers and their
paintings alone would permit. What follows is a
description of the observed work and painting
methods, and a discussion of some examples of
the fragments and fragment groups with im-
portant details that allow some insight into
what could have been the content of the paint-
ings.
1. Wall Structure: Plaster and Paint Layers
The backs of the painted plaster fragments
show that they covered not only masonry walls
built of large stone blocks but also walls made
up of an assortment of smaller stones, flat
bricks, spolia, and a good deal of mortar. The
plaster layer over these sections of wall is much
thicker than that over the masonry walls, partly
because the bricks in particular have a higher
porosity. This would have led the plaster to dry
more quickly, which was apparently not desir-
able.7 Most of the plaster in all layers contains
chaff (bits of straw or grass) in varying
amounts.8 Since the color and consistency of
the plaster show only minor variations, differ-
ences in the amount of chaff added to the plas-
ter can best be explained as an indication of the
work process, whereby small batches of plaster
were mixed up and used immediately. Some
fragments found in the south aisle, however,
have a second plaster layer that contains so
great an amount of chaff that they break apart
easily. This might be taken to indicate a differ-
ent work process and, perhaps, a different date
for the painting, but the frescoes on this type of
plaster still need to be compared closely with
the other second-layer paintings to see whether
7
Winfield, “Wall Painting Methods,” 67, 79.
8
On binders and fillers in plaster, see Winfield, “Wall
Painting Methods,” 64–69. The plaster used in the Amor-
ium church is no different.
281
there is an obvious difference in color and
painting technique. A few plaster and painting
fragments found in the northwest corner of the
church (Contexts AM90/A4-2 and AM90/A4-4)
do not contain any chaff at all but have a brick-
dust or sand filler instead. Moreover, the paint
colors and technique used on these pieces are
also different from all other fragments. This
could signify either that they belong to a differ-
ent group of painters and, perhaps, a different
date or that the fragments fell into the church
area from a separate room or building. Finally,
a very small number of fragments show a plas-
ter with a very uneven (unleveled) surface
and no painted decoration. They resemble the
mud-plaster that is still in use in the village
today.
It was immediately apparent both from the
loose fragments and blocks and from the sur-
viving panel in the south aisle that the church
had been decorated several times in the middle
Byzantine period. At least two successive paint-
ing phases can be identified, but in a few in-
stances even a third painted layer has survived.
A new layer of plaster was applied over the
older surface and painted; in many cases not
much of the older layer has survived or has yet
been identified, but traces of the painted sur-
face are preserved on the back of the newer
plaster.9 Such traces appear on only a small
fraction of the fragments. It is possible to con-
clude, therefore, that in many cases none of the
older pigments became detached from their
original layer when the newer plaster separated
from it, and this would mean that the adhesion
between old paint and new plaster was not very
strong. Many other fragments show that the
plaster had been applied to a smooth surface,
but since there are no paint traces it is difficult
to tell whether there were bare stone blocks un-
derneath or whether the older painted layer
underneath remained intact on the wall. In
general, it seems, the newer plaster layer was
applied directly over the older paintings with-
out any further preparation; there are no hatch
marks or deep scratches cut into the old paint
surface nor any trace of washing of the walls,
both of which would allow stronger adhesion
between the old paint and the new plaster. In
9
In the following discussion, “layer 1” indicates the
older or first layer of plaster; “layer 2” refers to the layer of
plaster and paint on top of “layer 1.”
282 THE AMORIUM PROJECT: RESEARCH AND EXCAVATION IN 2000
fact, some of the plaster fragments with smooth
backs show signs of a very faint grayish layer,
which looks more like dust or dirt than pig-
ment, suggesting that the grime of several years
had accumulated and had not been washed off
before the next plaster layer was applied.
In both painting phases only a single plaster
layer was applied, which acted as both under-
coat and as the surface to be painted. Bits of
chaff show through the thinner coats of paint
and in some cases have become detached, leav-
ing tiny rectangular holes in the painted pic-
ture. This is a shortcut and is documented for
other sites with middle Byzantine paintings;
ideally, a very white and fine-grained thin paint
surface would be applied on top of a much
coarser leveling plaster.10 It was possible to use
this plaster as a paint surface only because it is
very light-colored and fine-grained (except for
the chaff ), and had been leveled carefully.
One fragment of plaster recovered from the
area of the bema was found to contain a glass
tessera that matches those used in the ceiling
mosaics. The mosaic setting bed is made up of
plaster with a consistency and color very similar
to that used underneath the paintings. Like-
wise, there was only one layer of plaster under
the mosaics, used as both leveling layer and set-
ting bed.11 It may be assumed, therefore, that
the mosaics were installed first, before the walls
were plastered and painted (and, perhaps,
even before the floor was installed), but it is
clear that the church must have been painted at
the time the mosaics were set. Probably, the
same scaffolding was used by both mosaicists
and painters. This also indicates that a number
of painters and mosaicists were at work.12
When the middle Byzantine church was con-
structed, the masonry was painted with red
10
Restle, “Maltechnik,” 1247 f; Kostof, Caves of God, 147.
Compare the list in Winfield, “Wall Painting Methods,” 67
f, table 2; most churches in Asia Minor show paintings on
only one layer of plaster.
11
Generally, three layers of plaster were used under-
neath mosaics, two as leveling layers and the third as the
setting bed; see D. Mouriki, The Mosaics of Nea Moni on Chios
(Athens, 1986), 94–97. The Amorium mosaics show an un-
expected and unusual shortcut to this technique.
12
On the relations between mosaicists and painters, see
Restle, “Maltechnik,” 1265. It has been suggested that mo-
saics and paintings could have been the work of the same
artist; see Winfield, “Wall Painting Methods,” 91; L. James,
Light and Colour in Byzantine Art (Oxford, 1996), 26 f; S. H.
Young, “Relations between Mosaic and Fresco Technique,”
JÖB 25 (1976): 269–78.
decoration. Architectural features such as win-
dow openings, wall joints, pier corners, and
arches were decorated with red lines and
circles; since these would not have required
templates or sinopia, the red line decoration
cannot be considered as a preliminary sketch
for the frescoes that followed. It is more likely
that an interval elapsed between the time the
renovation of the church building was com-
pleted and the time the mosaicists and painters
started their work. In the meantime decoration
of some kind, however simple, was considered
desirable.13
For the moment the question of whether the
second plaster and paint layer was part of a gen-
eral redecoration of the church remains open.
The same pink color scheme for ornamental ar-
eas as on the second layer decoration of the arch
fragment (Figs. 1, 2) was used on small frag-
ments from a different area of the south aisle
and, in this case, on a first layer of plaster. This
could indicate that gaps in layer 1 were covered
over during the redecoration with layer 2. If the
layer 2 paintings were part of a small local re-
decoration (i.e., retouching of icons or a change
in picture content in a few places), ornaments
on window frames and architectural elements
would not have been included.
2. Paintings: Technical Details
The framework for the pictures was drawn
on the unpainted plaster with watery yellow
paint, and the area was then painted over with
background and frame colors. The painters
constructed figures with the help of guidelines
incised into the fresh plaster and used a com-
pass to incise an outline circle for the nimbus.
They also used thin red paint to sketch faces.14
13
Preliminary decorations are known from other
churches, for example, the cave churches of Cappadocia:
see Kostof, Caves of God, 93, 146, 253 note 1; and in Egypt:
see K. Innemée, “The Iconographical Program of Paint-
ings in the Church of al ‘Adra in Deir al Sourian,” in
M. Krause and S. Schaten, eds., QEMELIA. Spätantike und
koptologische Studien Peter Grossmann zum 65. Geburtstag,
Sprachen und Kulturen des christlichen Orients 3 (Wies-
baden, 1998), 144. The Vita S. Pancratii, in describing the
construction of the martyrium church for the saint, men-
tions that a year elapsed between the completion of the
construction and the decoration with biblical scenes; see
C. Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312–1453: Sources
and Documents (Toronto, 1986), 138.
14
Painted drawings: Restle, “Maltechnik,” 1265 f; Win-
field, “Wall Painting Methods,” 80–96, pls. 4–10. Incised
 1

3 4
Scale 1:1

Fig. A Glass finds from 1998 (drawing: B. Y. Olcay)

Fig. B Plan of Trench XD and XB (drawing: Y. Mergen)
 1 Block PP024, Context AM96/A8-17, wall block 2, lower left corner
block of a blind arcade or window frame with fresco decoration in two
layers (digital image: J. Witte-Orr)

2 Block PP007, Context AM96/A8-6, block from a blind arcade or window

with fresco decoration in two layers (digital image: J. Witte-Orr)
3 Fragments of an unfinished fresco with figural decoration (photo: C. Zitrides)

4 AM96/A9-9, fresco in situ on the south wall of the church (digital image: J. Witte-Orr)
 5 AM91/A3-27, fragments of an inscribed scroll (digital image: J. Witte-Orr)

6 AM 96/A8-27, face fragment with mouth and nose tip (digital image: J. Witte-Orr)
 7 Face fragment, context unknown (digital image: J. Witte-Orr)

8 Two fragments showing part of a face and nimbi (photo: C. Zitrides)

 9 AM91/A3-27, fragment of the second inscription (digital image: J. Witte-Orr)

10 AM91/A3-27, further fragment of the second inscription (digital image: J. Witte-Orr)

 11 AM91/A3-27, fragments of red and yellow ornamented
garments belonging to a scroll bearer (digital image: J.
Witte-Orr)

12 A follis (SF4024) of Nikephoros II Phokas from Trench XD (AM00/02/15-16; photo: C. S. Lightfoot)

13 The inner face of the Enclosure circuit wall, W03, looking south (AM00/02/9; photo: C. S. Lightfoot)
14 An Ionic impost capital fragment, T1519 (AM00/01/16A; photo: C. S. Lightfoot)
15 Trench XD, Structure 2, Context 21, paved floor in situ, looking northeast (AM00/02/3; photo: C.S. Lightfoot)
16 Trench XD, showing paving slab at top right (AM00/03/8; photo: C. S. Lightfoot)

17 Trench XD, looking southwest, showing wall (W13) of Structure 2 with later blocking (W14); hydraulic mortar visible
on W22 and Context 21 at rear (AM00/02/35; photo: C. S. Lightfoot)
18 Trench XB, channel, looking toward the Enclosure circuit wall (AM00/02/26; photo: C. S. Lightfoot)
19 Trench XB, channel, looking from the Enclosure circuit wall (AM00/02/32; photo: C. S. Lightfoot)
 C. S. LIGHTFOOT ET AL.
A small fragment (Fig. 3) documents an unfin-
ished painting; the garment folds on this piece
are sketched with thin green lines and the back-
ground blue has been painted beside it, but the
color coats for shadows, middle ground, and
highlights of the folds are missing. The large
fresco fragment on the south wall (Fig. 4) and
fragments of two other figures also show that
the background was painted after the picture
had been sketched and that colors, details, and
outlines of figures and picture frames were
added afterwards (see below). Several frag-
ments show that a black background color was
applied first and later was covered with a bright
blue; the blue appears to have had a pastier
consistency than the black, and has more lus-
tre.15 There is no trace of black under the blue
background of the figure on the south wall, and
the unfinished area to the left of this picture
shows that this method was not used here.
The surviving fresco (Fig. 4) in the western
bay of the south aisle is painted on a third layer
of plaster that covers part of the second and first
layers. The picture has a dark blue background
with a slightly greenish cast within a red frame,
set off from the background by a thin white line.
The area to the left of the frame was never com-
pletely painted; one brush stroke of dark blue
tapers off halfway down, and the remainder of
the plaster is unpainted. It seems that the
painter was not asked or did not have time to
paint another panel to the left. It is possible that
the panel was a patch applied only to this par-
ticular spot on the south wall, either to replace
an earlier (now unwanted) image or to repair an
area of damage. However, it may represent work
in process, in which the new plaster layer was
applied across the entire wall of the bay and
painted panel by panel. In this case, it would
seem that the surviving picture was finished on
one day, and that the painter failed to come back
and start on the next panel to the left on the fol-
lowing day. Why this was so is a mystery.
guidelines: ibid., 96–99, pls. 11–12. Table 2 gives a list of
some churches with frescoes in Asia Minor; incised lines
were apparently not used in Cappadocia, but they are
found in Constantinople, Trebizond (Trabzon), and else-
where in the Pontos, starting in the 10th century, and, more
often, in the 12th century.
15
Theophilos, in De diversis artibus, describes the paint-
ing of background colors in exactly this way; the same
method can be found in many other frescoes, see Winfield,
“Wall Painting Methods,” 100.
283
A blue, sometimes sky blue, background
seems to have been used for all pictures, but in
the lower part of the pictures it changed to a
green ground. There are two exceptions: the
fragment from the west wall of the naos shows a
burgundy red background above the lower
frame line, and in the picture on the south wall
(Fig. 4) the blue background continues to the
bottom of the panel. The pictures were framed
by a red border, set off from the blue and green
picture background by a narrow white line.
The fragment from the naos wall, as well as sev-
eral other smaller fragments, shows that below
the main picture area there was a low dado
painted with an imitation of diagonally veined
marble slabs. Below the imitation marble dado
there was a band of black or red, perhaps in-
tended as an imitation of a molding in a differ-
ent stone. Some architectural features in the
south aisle, such as windows or niches, were
decorated in the second layer with ornamental
patterns in a light pink, burgundy, and red
color scheme (Figs. 1, 2). The first layer was
painted with yellow, red, and black, but not
enough is visible to detect a pattern. For the
lines of text in inscriptions (Fig. 5), guidelines
were pressed into the plaster with a cord. In
one case this seems to have happened when the
plaster was fairly dry so that the cord left an im-
pression with very broken edges.
For the faces and hands of figures, and for
some of the garments, the paint was applied in
several thin coats with a very fine brush. In
those cases where many different colors were
applied in one spot, the surface seems much
smoother, since the plaster and chaff have been
covered over by many coats. Several coats of dif-
ferent colors in one spot do not necessarily in-
dicate that a picture was repainted. However, in
one case the colors and lines of the uppermost
coat are so different from the one it covers that
one should suspect a repainting. Faces and
body parts were painted with an olive green
ground color that was overpainted with pink,
peach, red, and white for details (Figs. 6–8).
Some of the images seem to have had a much
larger format and were painted with wider
brushes, which could indicate that they had a
position higher up on the walls. Several frag-
ments of faces were identified, and measure-
ments of nose length, chin to nose tip distance,
and eye width or nimbus diameter were taken
284 THE AMORIUM PROJECT: RESEARCH AND EXCAVATION IN 2000
to calculate the head and body size.16 On the
smallest piece (Fig. 6), a very small mouth with
the tip of the nose and the chin are visible: this
must have been the face of a small person or
child. Another piece shows the face of a young
adult (Fig. 7), and on a third fragment only the
upper left side of a face with eye, eyebrow, and
wavy hair is preserved (Fig. 8). It seems reason-
able to assume that the painter used propor-
tional rules for figures in which body height is a
multiple of face and nose lengths. It can be cal-
culated, therefore, that the body size of the fig-
ures to which the latter two fragments belonged
was approximately 1.60–1.70 m, that is, life
size. The figure still in situ on the south aisle
wall (Fig. 4) can be reconstructed to a similar
size. If the fragment of the smaller face (Fig. 6)
belonged to an infant Christ seated on his
mother’s arm or lap, his body size would have
been 0.70–0.80 m; if, however, this represents a
different individual in a standing position, his
or her body size would have been 1.10–1.20 m.
At present only a few observations can be
made about the picture content. The fragment
with eye and wavy hair (Fig. 8) shows two over-
lapping nimbi, so it must have been part of a
picture showing two people positioned close to-
gether. This in turn means that we have here a
fragment of a narrative representation, not an
image of two saints standing next to each other.
The fragments of the first inscription (Fig. 5)
mentioned below must have been a text on a
scroll that was held in front of his left leg by a
richly dressed figure. To the right of the scroll
the background is black (perhaps the black un-
derpainting for a blue background), and there
is no trace of further picture details on this side.
From comparison with similar compositions in
other frescoes and mosaics, this figure can be
recognized as a prophet, and, because of his
16
The calculations are based on the proportional sys-
tems of Dionysos of Fourna and Panselinos, as described by
the Winfields, and a comparison of these two systems with
the proportions used in several of the Hagia Sophia mo-
saics; see J. and D. Winfield, Proportion and Structure of the
Human Figure in Byzantine Wall-Painting and Mosaic (Oxford,
1982), 54–66, 67–93; C. Mango, Materials for the Study of the
Mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul (Washington, D.C., 1962), pl.
50: Alexander, pl. 62: Ignatios the Younger, pl. 70: St. John
Chrysostomos, pl. 72: St. Ignatios Theophoros, and pl. 106:
apse mosaic. For the same mosaics, see also N. B. Teteriat-
nikov, Mosaics of Hagia Sophia, Istanbul: The Fossati Restoration
and the Work of the Byzantine Institute (Washington, D.C.,
1998), fig. 27: Chrysostomos, fig. 28: Ignatios, fig. 38:
Alexander, and fig. 49: Virgin and Child.
richly ornamented garments, he may be identi-
fied as Daniel, or perhaps David or Solomon.17
Dress details, such as ornamented borders imi-
tating gold embroidery with jewels on tunic
and cloak, also allow an identification of the fig-
ure still in situ on the south wall (Fig. 4). It must
have been a person of higher rank and most
likely represents St. Barbara or St. Catherine of
Alexandria. It is less likely to be a donor por-
trait.18
3. Fragments of Inscriptions: Contexts
AM91/A3-27 and AM91/A3-3119
Among the large number of fragments from
these contexts are parts of two inscriptions.
One is painted with thin black paint on a white
and slightly greenish background; the other is
painted with stronger black paint on a yellowish
17
David, Solomon, and Daniel appear in richly orna-
mented clothing and hold scrolls in the much later Elmalı
Kilise; see M. Restle, Die byzantinische Wandmalerei in
Kleinasien, vol. 2 (Recklinghausen, 1967), pls. 161, 167; cf.
also O. Demus, W. Dorigo, A. Niero, G. Perocco, and E. Vio,
Venise. Saint Marc (Paris, 1991), 76, 94. Daniel is usually
dressed in “Persian” style with a short tunic, Phrygian cap,
leggings, and a cloak; see K. Wessel, “Daniel,” RBK 1
(Stuttgart, 1966): 1113–20.
In general, prophet figures holding scrolls with legible
texts became part of the church decoration in the 6th cen-
tury. Early post-iconoclastic examples are provided by the
large prophet figures on the two tympana of Hagia Sophia;
see Mango, Materials for the Study, Diagrams III, IV, and
Teteriatnikov, Mosaics of Hagia Sophia, figs. 25, 26. For an-
other one in a side room, see P. A. Underwood, “A Prelimi-
nary Report on Some Unpublished Mosaics in Hagia
Sophia: Season of 1950 of the Byzantine Institute,” AJA 55
(1951): 368 f, pl. 17. Photios, in his description of the
church of the Virgin of the Pharos, mentions a prophet,
who “though silent, cries out his sayings of yore”; see
Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 186 (Mango identi-
fies him by the quotation from the Psalms as David).
18
In the Leo Bible, the patron of the book, Leo, and his
brother Constantine are shown wearing red cloaks with
gold borders. Leo’s tunic is white and has gold brocade bor-
ders at hem and wrist: see J. Lowden, Early Christian and
Byzantine Art (London, 1997), figs. 111, 112. St. Barbara:
for example, in Ayvalı Kilise/Güllü Dere (913–920),
M. Restle, Byzantinische Wandmalerei, vol. 3, pl. 340; in St.
Barbara-Tahtalı Kilise/Soğanlı (1006 or 1021), ibid., 3: pl. 433.
St. Catherine: for example, in Göreme, Chapel No. 9 (10th
century), ibid., 2:pl. 129. The two saints are shown facing
each other on one arcade intrados in the New Tokalı Kilise:
A. W. Epstein, Tokalı Kilise. Tenth-Century Metropolitan Art
in Byzantine Cappadocia (Washington, D.C., 1986), 67 (no
photo). Further examples: H. Maguire, The Icons of Their
Bodies: Saints and Their Images in Byzantium (Princeton, N.J.,
1996), 28 ff, figs. 24, 25.
19
It may be noted that an anonymous follis (SF1534) of
class A.1 or A.2 was also recovered from context A3-31 in
1991.
 C. S. LIGHTFOOT ET AL. 285

ground and is underlined with umber horizon- (Fig. 9), the other one can be read as TIAN or
tal lines. TIAU (Fig. 10).
First inscription (Fig. 5), letter height: 5.5–
6.0 cm. Line width, short umber lines: between THE GLASS FINDS FROM 1998
0.3 and 0.25 cm; bright red lines: 0.5 cm; gray (BY B. YELDA OLCAY)
outline on the left side of the scroll: 0.75 cm.
Almost all of the glass found during the 1998
The painting is on a single layer of plaster; the
season was in the form of small, broken frag-
back of the plaster shows that it was attached to
ments.21 Most of them came from Trench XC in
walls built of large stone blocks next to smaller
the Enclosure, but another smaller group was
stones and bricks.
excavated in Trench LC6 behind the Lower
Second inscription (Figs. 9, 10), letter height:
City walls, while a few fragments were also re-
approximately 5 cm (only the upper half of the
covered from the Lower City Church. In gen-
letters remains).
eral, it can be seen that the vessels to which the
Parts of the first inscription could be joined
fragments belong were free-blown and that,
to fragments of a figure wearing a dark red to
since the fragments contain many bubbles, the
reddish-brown garment falling in zigzag folds
quality of the fabric is relatively poor. Most of
highlighted in light brown. The garment has a
the finds, as well as being very small and frag-
black hem covered with a line of small white
mentary, displayed a surface layer of weather-
dots (possibly representing pearls), and a sec-
ing and iridescence. The exception to this gen-
ond yellow garment with double rows of white
eral observation can be found in the fragments
dots (Fig. 11). In the dark red area of the red
of window glass recovered from Context 91 in
garment, incised guidelines can be detected:
Trench XC. These were both larger in size and
they must be construction guidelines for the
less weathered than the majority of the vessel
folds. At the moment not enough pieces have
fragments. The most common color used for
been joined together to tell to which area of the
the glass was green, with various shades being
figure they belong. The inscription fragments
represented, but some fragments also showed
that could be joined together (Fig. 5) show on
up as blue-green, dark blue (particularly prev-
the left edge of the scroll a cross at the begin-
alent for applied trails), and light yellow. The
ning, then C and at the end of this line R. Sev-
most common form of decoration found among
eral lines down (it is unclear how many) there is
the fragments was the applied trail, most of-
KAI (the last letter could be the beginning of N
ten in dark blue glass, which occurred on the
instead), and at the beginning of the next line
rim, around the body, and on the base. Diag-
KA. Another piece from the left edge, but not
nostic vessel fragments included rims, bases,
joined, has the beginning ÇOÇ, and a piece of
footed bases, lamp stems, handles, and neck
the right edge ends with TO. Other floating
fragments.
pieces display the letter groups: ÇO TOÇ IF.
The preliminary study of the material re-
The second inscription, on a sienna ground
vealed that some fragments found in the same
and underlined by umber lines, may be part of
context and trench belonged to the same ves-
another prophet scroll or an evangelist’s book,
sels. It was then possible to make a paper re-
but it could also be something entirely differ-
construction of two different types of lamp (Fig.
ent.20 Not enough is preserved to determine the
A, nos. 2–4) and a footed cup or goblet (Fig. A,
format, except that it was arranged in at least
no. 1). The latter vessel may also be viewed as a
three lines. Two letter groups are legible: one of
lamp.
them can be restored as …ÇEBR… or …ÇERB…
The lamp fragments form one of the easiest
20
groups to identify. For the present, three differ-
A TLG search for the word fragments …
eвр… or …

eрв… and …
eвр… or …
eрв… in the text of the Septu- ent types can be distinguished: (1) stemmed
agint resulted in only a few quotations. None is typical of lamps that were used in polycandela, (2) hang-
those used on prophet scrolls; see A.-M. Gravgaard, Inscrip- ing lamps with handles, and (3) goblets that
tions of Old Testament Prophecies in Byzantine Churches: A Cata-
logue (Copenhagen, 1979). Either the fragments did not be-
long to a scroll, or it carried an unusual quotation. My 21
A preliminary study of the 1998 finds was also carried
thanks go to A. Alexakis, G. Baloglou, and M. Stein for help out by Dr. M. A. V. Gill during the excavation season; cf.
in the TLG database search. DOP 55 (2001): 394–98 and fig. L.
286 THE AMORIUM PROJECT: RESEARCH AND EXCAVATION IN 2000
may be considered as lamps.22 The stems of the
first type of lamp are easily recognizable, and at
Amorium these finds can be divided into two
groups. The first type has a solid stem, for
which parallels found elsewhere are most often
dated between the middle of the eleventh and
the beginning of the thirteenth century. The
best examples are provided by the excavations
at Saraçhane in Istanbul and at the church of
St. Nicholas at Demre (Myra) in Lycia.23 Other
examples have a similar solid stem but with a
rounded knob at the end. This variant, al-
though rare, has been recorded at Amorium
in previous seasons.24 The knobbed stem type
may also be dated to the eleventh century,
whereas outside Anatolia they are usually
placed earlier in the ninth and tenth cen-
turies.25 So the finds at Amorium may be tenta-
tively assigned to the later phases of Byzantine
occupation in the tenth and eleventh centuries.
The second lamp type distinguished among
the finds from Amorium is cylindrical with a
thick, slightly pointed base and a hollow stem
expanding upwards.26 This type is found
throughout the Middle East; similar examples
outside Anatolia have been found at Apamea in
Syria, Caesarea Maritima in Palestine, and on
Cyprus, but the closest parallel to the Amorium
material is offered by a find from the excava-
tions at the church of St. Nicholas at Demre that
is dated by context to the sixth–eighth cen-
22
The finds from the previous seasons (1987–97) have
been studied by Margaret Gill. The publication of her de-
tailed catalogue, including numerous examples of these
three types, is expected to appear by the end of 2002;
M. A. V. Gill, Amorium Reports, Finds I: The Glass (Oxford,
2002).
23
J. W. Hayes, Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, vol. 2
(Princeton, N.J., 1992), 404, nos. 50, 70–71, fig. 152;
M. Acara and B. Y. Olcay, “Bizans Döneminde Aydınlatma
Düzeni ve Demre Aziz Nikolaos Kilisesi’nde Kullanılan
Aydınlatma Gereçleri,” Adalya 2 (1998): 253, pl. 1, i–m.
24
Gill, Amorium Reports, Part 1, no. 31 (from Trench AB,
Context 110); Part 2, nos. 37–39 (from Trench L, Context
390; from Trench UU, Context 48; and from Trench A2-1,
Context 10, respectively). These findspots, ranging from
the Upper City to the Lower City walls, indicate that such
lamps were widely distributed across the site.
25
For a recent discussion of this type, see S. Hadad,
“Glass Lamps from the Byzantine through Mameluk Peri-
ods at Bet Shean, Israel,” JGS 40 (1998): 69 (Type 2), and
references in note 12.
26
Gill, Amorium Reports, Part 1, nos. 21–24 (all from con-
texts in the Large Building, Lower City); Part 2, nos. 30–
34 (from Trench AB, Context 101; from Trench TT, Con-
text 122; and from various contexts in the Lower City
Church).
tury.27 In publications the type is usually as-
signed a sixth- or seventh-century date.28
Another type of lamp that is attested among
the finds has suspension handles. The recon-
structed example (Fig. A, no. 2) has an everted
and folded rim, and a body that tapers toward
the bottom, while the handles are applied to the
sides. Close parallels, in both shape and handle
design, can be found among the glass from
Demre, while recent excavations at Tarsos have
also produced similar finds.29 Further work is
required before an exact date can be given to
the type, but it is likely that it belongs to the
middle Byzantine period.
Foot and base fragments are the most impor-
tant indicators for establishing a typology of the
cup and goblet finds from Amorium. Prelimi-
nary results from the study of the 1998 finds in-
dicate that two types are represented. The first
is shaped as a massive goblet complete with
footed base (Fig. A, no. 1). It has been possible
to find published parallels of this type. Similar
examples found at Gerasa in Jordan are tenta-
tively dated to the eighth century and later.30
Another close parallel has been noted at
Demre.31 A second type of goblet is attested
among the bases; this has a folded outer edge to
the base. Parallels from sites both in Anatolia
and elsewhere indicate that this type of base is
characteristic of goblets produced in the fifth–
seventh centuries.32 Significantly, it does not ap-
pear to be found in later contexts.
27
A. Engle, Light, Lamps and Windows in Antiquity
(Jerusalem, 1987), fig. 19; M. Peleg and R. Reich, “Byzan-
tine City Wall of Caesarea Maritima,” Atiqot 21 (1992): fig.
20: 12, 14; J. Taylor and A. H. S. Megaw, “Excavations at
Ayios Philon,” RDAC (1981): fig. 46; B. Y. Olcay, “St.
Nicholas Church Excavation in Demre (Myra) in Antalya,
1989–95. Glass Finds” (Ph.D. diss., Social Sciences Insti-
tute, Hacettepe University, Ankara, 1997), 467, pl. II, 4.
28
See Hadad, “Glass Lamps,” 69, 72 (Type 4), and refer-
ences in note 16.
29
Acara and Olcay, “Aydınlatma,” pl. 2, g. The Tarsos
glass finds have already been prepared for publication.
30
C. Meyer, “Glass from the North Theater, Byzantine
Church and Soundings at Jerash, Jordan 1982–83,” BASOR
Supplement 25 (1987): 211, fig. 11, V, X, Y, Z.
31
Acara and Olcay, “Aydınlatma,” 255, pl. 3, e.
32
Parallels include finds from the 5th–6th century at
Sardis, the 5th–7th century at Anemurium, the 6th–7th
century at Demre, the 6th–7th century at Gerasa, and the
5th–7th century at Carthage. A. von Saldern, Ancient and
Byzantine Glass from Sardis (London, 1980), 58, no. 351, pl.
24: 351; E. M. Stern, “Ancient and Medieval Glass from the
Necropolis Church at Anemurium,” Annales du 9e Congrès de
l’Association Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre (Liège,
1985), 44–45, pl. 3; Meyer, “Jerash, Jordan,” fig. 8, Y; J. M.
 C. S. LIGHTFOOT ET AL.
Another reliable indicator for dating pur-
poses is provided by the applied trails that are
found on some of the vessel fragments. This
decorative element seems to have been in use
over a long period of time, beginning in the
Roman and continuing into the Byzantine pe-
riod. Published examples, however, indicate
that such trails were especially popular in the
seventh–ninth centuries.33 One explanation for
this phenomenon may be the reduced eco-
nomic circumstances of the Byzantines as a re-
sult of the Arab raids on Anatolia. Just as all the
other branches of arts and crafts suffered a de-
cline at this time, so glass production was re-
duced to a relatively basic level. The fabric of
the glass made in the seventh–ninth centuries is
generally poor, while the addition of trails (usu-
ally in dark blue) would have constituted both
an easy and a cheap form of decoration. It is
likely that the rim, body, and base fragments
decorated with such trails that have been found
at Amorium belong to the Dark Ages.
Finally, a group of glass that is striking among
the finds from 1998 is the window glass, all from
Context 91 in Trench XC. These constitute
some of the largest fragments of glass so far re-
covered from the excavations, one reason for
their size being the thickness of the panes. A few
of the fragments have an original edge. It is
clear that these panes were made in flat sheets,
a technique that was in use from the Roman pe-
riod until well into Byzantine times. Until the
relative stratigraphy of the context in which the
window glass was found has been precisely de-
termined, the date of the Amorium fragments
must remain uncertain. Nevertheless, the finds
from XC Context 91 constitute an important
group to be added to the growing body of evi-
dence for Roman and Byzantine window glass.34
Crowfoot, “Glass,” in G. M. Crowfoot, The Objects from
Samaria (London, 1957), 415, fig. 96: 7; Acara and Olcay,
“Aydınlatma,” 255, pl. 3, a–d.
33
Meyer, “Jerash, Jordan,” 197.
34
For a general discussion of ancient window glass, see
D. Whitehouse, “Window Glass between the First and the
Eighth Centuries,” in F. Dell’Acqua and R. Silva, eds., Il Col-
ore nel Medioevo. Arte Sibolo Technica. La Vetrata in Occidente
dal IV all’ XI Secolo (Lucca, 2001), 31–43. A recent survey
concluded that “finds of window glass from the middle and
late Byzantine periods are rare”; Ousterhout, Master
Builders, 151. This, however, does not take into account the
Amorium examples recorded in AnatSt 46 (1996): 107–8,
109 nos. 8–14, and DOP 51 (1997): 296, fig. C. For other ex-
amples, see G. L. Davidson, Corinth, vol. 12, The Minor Ob-
jects (Princeton, N.J., 1952), 144–45 nos. 1061–66.
287
The majority of the glass finds from the ex-
cavations conducted at Amorium in 1998 can
be assigned to the period between the sixth and
eleventh/twelfth centuries. Closer dating of the
finds may be possible as the study of the mate-
rial advances and the stratigraphy of the site
comes into sharper focus.
THE COINS (BY CHRIS LIGHTFOOT)
In 2000 a total of twenty-six bronze or cop-
per alloy coins were recorded. They were all
cleaned and conserved by Emre Eser; they were
then photographed and cast, and finally they
were deposited in the Afyon Archaeological
Museum on 7 September. Of these coins only
five were recovered from the excavations in the
Lower City; the remainder were all surface or
stray finds, most of which had been picked up
by the site guard, Bilâl Eryiǧit, before the be-
ginning of the season.
As in previous years, the majority of the finds
belong to the Byzantine period. None can be
positively assigned to a date earlier than the
fourth century. Few coins of the sixth century
have been found at Amorium, and so it was
gratifying to be able to add a nummus of Anas-
tasios, particularly as this small coin was picked
up as a surface find.35 Two more issues belong
to the reigns of Herakleios and Constans II in
the seventh century, while a third follis, badly
corroded on the obverse, may tentatively be as-
signed to one of the early eighth-century em-
perors on account of its size, weight, and gen-
eral appearance.36
Two more issues of Emperor Theophilos,
35
AM00/Surface/SF4012. From the Lower City. AE num-
mus, A.D. 491–517. Mint of Constantinople. Obv. Bust of
emperor, diademed and wearing a cuirass and paludamen-
tum, r. Rev. Monogram. 10.0 mm; 1.01 g; 6h. C. Morrisson,
Catalogue des monnaies byzantines de la Bibliothèque Nationale,
I, D’Anastase Ier à Justinien II (491–711) (Paris, 1970), no. 1/
Cp/AE/02.
36
(1) Herakleios: AM00/XD Context 4 (subsoil)/SF4022.
AE follis, class 4, year 27 = A.D. 636/7 (?). Mint of Constan-
tinople. Obv. To 1., Herakleios standing, facing, holding
long cross in r. hand; to r. Herakleios Constantine standing,
facing, in chlamys; between them, cross. Very corroded.
Rev. M; above cross and C; to l., [ANNO]; to r., C/C/II (?); in
exergue, [Ç]ON. 25–23 mm; 7.09 g; –h. Morrisson, Cata-
logue des monnaies byzantines, no. 10/Cp/AE/75.
(2) Constans II: AM00/Surface/SF4016. Stray find. AE
follis, class 8 (?), year 13 = A.D. 653/4. Mint of Constantino-
ple. Obv [ENTWT ONIKA]; emperor standing, facing, hold-
ing long cross in r. and globe cruciger in l. hand. Rev. [M;
above, cross; to l., ANA; to r., NEOÍ]; in exergue, to r., CIII;
288 THE AMORIUM PROJECT: RESEARCH AND EXCAVATION IN 2000
both folles of class 1 dated 829–830/1, can now
be added to the growing list of coins found at
Amorium belonging to the first half of the ninth
century; one was found during excavations in
Trench XB.37 It may, perhaps, give some indi-
cation of the date for the channel and other fea-
tures (such as the row of troughs) that were sub-
sequently abandoned and sealed below the
Enclosure’s circuit wall.
The remaining twelve Byzantine coins be-
long to the tenth–eleventh centuries. Of partic-
ular note are the two well-preserved issues of
Nikephoros II Phokas from Trench XD (Fig.
12), found in contexts that help confirm the
dating of the restructuring of Structure 2 to
pre-963.38 Only four anonymous folles were
recorded, all surface finds, but of the three
signed folles, that of Michael VII is particularly
significant.39 Only one other Byzantine coin
to l. (?). 22.0–16.5 mm; 3.06 g; 2h. Morrisson, Catalogue des
monnaies byzantines, no. 13/Cp/AE/23.
(3) Uncertain emperor, Philippikos or Anastasios II:
AM00/Upper City, unstratified/SF4018. From the northern
sector of the Upper City (spoil heap). AE follis, year 1 = A.D.
711/2 or 713/4. Mint of Constantinople. Obv. [Bust of em-
peror facing, holding long cross in r. and globe cruciger in
l. hand]. Very corroded. Rev. M; above, cross; to l., ANN[O];
to r., I; below, A. 22.0–18.5 mm; 3.25 g; 6h (?). P. Grierson,
Byzantine Coins (London–Berkeley, 1982), nos. 403–404,
and cf. a follis of Anastasios II found at Pergamum; C. Mor-
risson, “Die byzantinischen Münzen,” in H. Voegtli, Die
Fundmünzen aus der Stadtgrabung von Pergamon (Berlin–New
York, 1993), 59, no. 822.
37
AM00/XB Context 32/SF4027. From Lower City En-
closure, 27.08.00. AE follis, class 1, A.D. 829–830/1. Mint of
Constantinople. Obv. * • q
-OÏIÒ' bASIL'; bust facing,
bearded, wearing chlamys and crown with cross, holding
patriarchal cross in r. hand, acacia in l. Rev. M; above, cross;
below, q; to l., XXX; to r., NNN. 30.5–29 mm; 7.76 g; 6h.
Grierson, DOC 3.1: 433, no. 13. The other coin, also a follis
of class 1 (AM00/Surface/SF4009. 29 mm; 7.84 g; 6h), is a
stray from the Lower City found by Bilâl Eryiğit during the
winter of 1999/2000.
38
(1) AM00/XD Context 17/SF4024. From Lower City
Enclosure, 24.08.00. AE follis, class 1, A.D. 963–969. Mint of
Constantinople, Obv. [+n]ICIFRb ASIL
VRw; bust facing,
bearded, wearing robe and crown with cross and pendilia;
in r. hand, cross scepter; in l., globe surmounted by trefoil.
Rev. [+]nICHF/
ˆq
w bA/SIL
VSRw/MAIwn.; 25–23.5 mm;
8.13 g; 6h. Grierson, DOC 3.1: 586–87, no. 7.
(2) AM00/XD Context 20/SF4026. From the Lower City
Enclosure, 25.08.00. AE follis, class 2, A.D. 963–969. Mint of
Constantinople. Obv. +nICIFRb ASIL[E]V[Rw]; bust fac-
ing, bearded, wearing modified loros and crown with cross
and pendilia; in r. hand, labarum; in l., globe cruciger. Rev.
+nICH [F]/
ˆq
wb[A]/SIL
VS[Rw]/ MAIw[n]; 24.5–22 mm;
4.44. g; 6h. Grierson, DOC 3.1:587–88, no. 8.
39
AM00/Surface/SF4010. Stray find. AE follis, var. a. or
b., A.D. 1071–78. Obv. Bust of Christ facing, with nimbus
cross and holding book; in field, [IC] XC above lateral arms
of cross, six-pointed stars beneath them. Rev. + MIX AHL
[RA]CI[OD]; bust facing, bearded, wearing modified loros
with collar-piece and crown with cross and pendilia, hold-
dating to after 1071 has been recorded at Amo-
rium—another follis of Michael VII, also a sur-
face find from the preliminary site survey in
1987 (AM87/SF3005).40
Two Islamic copper coins were found as sur-
face strays; both are issues of the Seljuks of
Rum.41 One is a fals of Kayka’us b. Kaykhusraw
(1246–57), while the other was minted at
Ankyra in the name of Kaykhusraw II and is
dated A.H. 635 (1237/8). They fit very well with
the other Islamic coins found at Amorium.
THE LOWER CITY ENCLOSURE: TRENCHES XD
AND XB (BY YALÇıN MERGEN)
Excavation in 2000 concentrated on one
small area within the Lower City Enclosure be-
tween the circuit wall, part of which had been
revealed in 1996 (in Trenches XA and XB), and
the trench that had been excavated in 1998
(Trench XC, with extension XBC joining with
Trench XB).42 The principal aims were to de-
fine the limits of one of the two major buildings
(no. 2 of Structures 1 and 2) that had been
found in Trench XC two years previously, to in-
vestigate the relationship between Structure 2
and the Enclosure’s circuit wall, and to clarify
the relative and absolute dating of the various
structures and associated features. The exca-
vated area (Fig. B) lies to the southeast of
Trench XC and southwest of Trenches XB and
XBC, while its southern limits were defined by
the circuit wall. It was designated as Trench XD
and measured 8 × 9 m. A 1-meter balk was pre-
served between the new trench and Trench XC,
but, despite this, it was possible to follow the
principal walls belonging to Structure 2 from
Trench XC through into Trench XD and up to
the circuit wall.
An impressive stretch of the inner face of the
Enclosure’s circuit wall (W03), measuring some
11.5 m in length, has now been revealed (Fig.
13). While cleaning and consolidation work on
ing in r. hand labarum, in l., globe cruciger. 23.5–22.5 mm;
6.31 g; 6h. Grierson, DOC 3.1:818–19, nos. 14a and 14b.
40
In 2001, however, another post-1071 coin was found;
see C. S. Lightfoot, “Amorium 2001,” in G. Coulthard, ed.,
Anatolian Archaeology: Research Reports 2001. British Institute
of Archaeology at Ankara 7 (2001): 10.
41
AM00/SF4006; 20–19 mm; 1.86 g, and AM00/SF4007;
22.5–20 mm; 5.28 g. Both identified from casts and photo-
graphs by Dr. Michael Bates, Curator of Islamic Coins at the
American Numismatic Society. The Project is very grateful
to Dr. Bates for lending his help and expertise.
42
DOP 52 (1998): 327–28, figs. 9–11; DOP 55 (2001):
381–94.
 C. S. LIGHTFOOT ET AL.
the section of wall uncovered in 1996 was being
completed, it was noticed that a fragment of an
early Byzantine (probably sixth century) Ionic
impost capital had been built into the core of
the wall. Since this block (T1519) had become
loose and was in imminent danger of falling
from the wall, it was removed to the Dig House,
where it was subsequently recorded and pho-
tographed (Fig. 14).43 This was an important
discovery, for it helps to confirm that the circuit
wall is a relatively late feature and that its
builders were not averse to using earlier spolia
such as architectural elements in its construc-
tion.
Initial stages of the excavation were ham-
pered by the large quantities of rubble that lay
immediately below the topsoil. The nature of its
composition and deposition clearly indicated
that most of this rubble had once belonged to
the circuit wall itself and had fallen into the
Enclosure either as the upper part of the wall
gradually decayed or as a result of stone-
robbing activities during the past century.
Structure 2
Phase 1 Once the rubble layer had been re-
moved, traces of two main walls appeared at the
eastern and western ends of the trench (Fig. B).
These walls (W13 and W22) were faced with
roughly carved blocks and had a mortared
rubble core. Both walls shared the same char-
acteristics as the walls belonging to Structure 2
uncovered in Trench XC, and, as excavation
proceeded, it became clear that they repre-
sented the continuation of walls W98/03 and
W98/51.44 Although they do not survive to any
great height, they provide a good indication of
the plan of the building. Structure 2 is now re-
vealed to have been a rectangular building,
aligned northwest to southeast and having
originally four entrances—three on the north-
eastern and one on the northwestern side. In
addition to the buttresses found at the corners
of the northwest end wall (W98/14) of Structure
2 in Trench XC, the excavations in Trench XD
provided evidence for further buttresses built
43
T1519, gray-veined marble, broken on all sides, L. (as
extant) 0.32 m.
44
Locals reported that these walls had survived above
ground within living memory but had been plundered for
stone, leaving only the lower section of the walls that was al-
ready buried. This may explain why all the walls survive to
this day at roughly the same height.
289
into the inner faces of W13 and W22. Although
the exact nature of the upper stories and the
roof of the building cannot be determined, the
rectangular plan and the thickness of the walls
suggest that Structure 2 had a substantial ma-
sonry superstructure, which probably included
a second floor and/or vaulted ceilings. In the
area between W05, W13, W19, and W22, a
paved floor of large stone slabs survives in situ
(Context 21; Fig. 15). This may be the Phase 1
floor of Structure 2, but in the area to the north-
east of W05 later alterations to the building had
apparently destroyed almost all of the rest of
this paved floor, and only in the northern cor-
ner of the trench were traces of a similar stone
floor found (Context 30; Fig. 16). Because of
the reuse of the building it is impossible to give
a precise date for the construction of Structure
2, but it is now clear that it existed before the
Enclosure’s circuit wall was built. At least one of
the principal walls (W13) of Structure 2 runs
underneath the new defensive wall (W03; Fig.
17), which here rises to accommodate the sur-
viving masonry.
Phase 2 The first alteration to Structure 2 that
can now be detected occurred when a well-built
cross wall (W19) was constructed within Struc-
ture 2. In construction technique it closely re-
sembles the building’s Phase 1 walls, but it is not
bonded into the inner faces of W13 and W22. A
conduit, 0.26 m wide, pierces W19 roughly at
its central point. The surfaces of W19 and W22
were plastered over with a thick layer of hy-
draulic mortar; this also extends onto the floor,
forming a continuous curved surface between
wall and floor (Fig. 17). Other traces of this
mortar survive not only as fill between the stone
floor slabs and on the conduit in W19 but also
on the surfaces of W13 and W22 to the north of
W05, indicating that the cistern or basin was
originally much larger. So it would seem that
much of the area within Structure 2 (as exposed
in Trench XD) was at one time used for storing
water. If this is so, then the openings in W13
must also have been blocked up during Phase
2, although tangible evidence for this is lack-
ing.45 The water apparently flowed into the cis-
tern (or large basin) through the conduit from
45
The outer face of W14 (see Fig. 17) comprises loose
rubble masonry and quantities of broken tile. However, the
large blocks visible at the base of the inner face of the same
wall resemble the composition of W19 of Phase 2 (see Fig.
15).
290 THE AMORIUM PROJECT: RESEARCH AND EXCAVATION IN 2000
the area that is now buried beneath the circuit
wall, confirmed by the fact that the stone paving
slopes down away from W19 in a northwesterly
direction. There is, however, no evidence of
how the water drained or was extracted from
the cistern.
Phase 3 At some point the stone paving was
replaced with a compacted earth floor (Context
25; Fig. 16), laid above a layer containing brick
fragments and broken terra-cotta storage jars
(Context 27). This floor can be associated with
the construction of a second cross-wall (W05),
roughly aligned but not exactly parallel to
W19. These alterations effectively put an end
to the use of Structure 2 for water-storage pur-
poses and also made the narrow corridorlike
area between W19 and W05 into a dead space.
It was probably at this stage that the conduit
running through W19 was blocked up and the
surviving blocking (W14) in W13 was con-
structed (Fig. 17). The appearance and compo-
sition of W05 and W14 are very similar,
strengthening the view that they are contem-
porary. It may be postulated that this major
change to Structure 2 was connected with the
construction of the Enclosure wall (W03). It is
unclear whether more of W13 had to be delib-
erately demolished in order to make room for
the circuit wall, but the continued use of parts
of Structure 2 after the construction of W03 im-
plies that some of its walls must have survived to
a much greater height. In general, however, it
would seem that the site was not systematically
leveled in order to prepare the ground when
the Enclosure wall was constructed. In all prob-
ability an open area or passageway was created
between the new southeastern wall (W05) of
Structure 2 and the inner face of W03, and it
may be that this was covered with a tile floor,
traces of which survive on the upper surface of
W19.46
The floor (Context 25; Fig. 16) inside Struc-
ture 2 is remarkably uniform, but in two areas
traces of rectangular mortar-lined trays were
found sunk into its surface (Context 27). Their
function remains uncertain. The multiple sur-
46
A small patch of tiled floor was found at the base of the
Enclosure wall in Trench XB in 1996, overlying one of the
stone troughs; DOP 52 (1998): 328, fig. B. It may also be
noted that the narrow area between the circuit wall (W03)
and W19 had a fill below the level of the tiled floor contain-
ing mud-brick. Other concentrations of mud-brick had
been found in Trench XB.
face layers of this packed earth floor indicate
that the area was in use for some time and re-
quired frequent resurfacing. A stone block laid
flat beside W22 at the northwestern end of the
trench also suggests that access may have been
provided by stairs and implies that the area now
served as a basement storeroom.
Phase 4 The latest phase of occupation con-
tinued to make use of the existing walls in
Structure 2. Traces of this phase appeared im-
mediately below the layers of rubble fallen from
the circuit wall and consisted principally of
rubble walls (W16) made up of small stone
blocks and earth mortar that divided the area
within Structure 2 into six small, irregular com-
partments (Fig. 16). The rooms contained nu-
merous fragments of storage jars and large
pithoi; one setting bed for a pithos was also found
still in situ at the northwestern end of the
trench. This evidence strongly suggests that
Structure 2 was now used as a depot for dry
goods. Between the rubble walls (W16), a sec-
ond well-defined earth floor surface (Context
20) was found.
An indication of the date for Phase 4 was pro-
vided by the discovery of two copper alloy
coins, both identified as folles of Emperor
Nikephoros II Phokas (963–969). One
(SF4024; Fig. 12) came from an earth layer
(Context 17) above the floor associated with the
rubble walls (W16), while the other (SF4026)
was found on the surface of the floor itself
(Context 20). So it would seem that the floor
was laid before the third quarter of the tenth
century and, if the construction of the Phase 3
cross-wall (W05) and floor (Context 25) is cor-
rectly associated with the restructuring of
Structure 2 as a result of the building of the En-
closure’s circuit wall, then it may tentatively be
suggested that the major redevelopment of this
central part of the site should be placed consid-
erably earlier than ca. 970.
The Channel or Drain
One of the most intriguing discoveries in
2000 was a channel, flanked to either side by six
massive stone slabs (Context 32), that runs par-
allel to the northeastern side wall (W13) of
Structure 2 (Figs. 18, 19). This area was exca-
vated in order to link the new trench (XD) with
the trench (XB) excavated in 1996. The chan-
 C. S. LIGHTFOOT ET AL.
nel or drain was, apparently, once covered over
with wooden planks, the unburned remains of
which (Context 37) were discovered collapsed
within the channel. The wooden planks clearly
rested on the stone slabs to either side, for the
inner edge of each slab had been carefully cut
back to provide a lip on which the planks could
rest. Moreover, traces of wood were detected on
the surface of these cuttings. The channel may
have been longer originally, but a spolia block
resembling a piece of an architrave had been
placed across its southeastern end. Most of this
block remains buried below the Enclosure’s cir-
cuit wall (W03; Fig. 18).47 The channel was also
blocked off at the other end with a rubble wall
(W33) that runs across from W13 of Structure 2
(Fig. 19), and certainly no trace of its continua-
tion was detected in Trench XC in 1998. The in-
terior of the channel was not fully excavated
before the end of the season, and the wood re-
mains were left in situ for further work and
analysis in 2001.48 A thin layer of ash (Context
34) was recognized immediately above the
channel in the area between the large slabs,
while the fill inside the channel also contained
a considerable amount of burned material
(Contexts 37 and 39), suggesting that the chan-
nel’s use may have come to a sudden, violent
end. Similar discrete areas of ash and carbon
were also excavated in the gap between the
channel and the outer face of W13 of Structure
2. The only coin (SF4027; see above, p. 288,
n. 37) found in association with the channel
was lodged in a crack between the broken-off
corner and the rest of the slab at the northwest-
ern end of the channel. That this coin belongs
to the reign of Emperor Theophilos may be of
special significance, but further excavation of
the interior of the channel is required before
any firm connection can be made between the
channel’s apparent destruction and the sack of
Amorium in 838.
47
While this block provided some support to the circuit
wall above, it should be noted that, whereas elsewhere the
foundations of W03 are built immediately over earlier fea-
tures (such as the stone trough in Trench XB and W13 of
Structure 2 in Trench XD), here there is a layer of earth
mixed with broken brick and tile between the level of the
channel and the lowest foundation course of the Enclosure
wall.
48
These features were not left exposed over the winter
of 2000/1 but were covered with geotextile and a temporary
backfill of crushed pumice.
291
CONCLUSION
It is now evident that Structure 2 is much
larger than was envisaged when it was first par-
tially uncovered in 1998. The excavations in
Trench XD have also made it clear that there
were as many as four main phases of occupa-
tion within the building. The last phase in-
volved the construction of flimsy partition walls
and the division of the interior of part of Struc-
ture 2 into a number of small compartments,
which match some of the latest features exca-
vated in 1998 in Trench XC. The recognition of
the two earth floors in Trench XD has also
helped to clarify the situation within the part of
Structure 2 that had been excavated in 1998
where it had proved difficult to find any trace of
a floor surface.49 They show a uniformity of oc-
cupation inside Structure 2 extending from
W05 up to the end wall (W98/14) of the build-
ing. So it would seem that the blocking of the
doorway in W98/03 took place at the same time
that the earlier floor (Context 25) was laid. It
can also be associated with the other blocking
walls (W14) uncovered in Trench XD, which it
matches closely in construction and materials.
The discovery of the channel or drain to the
northeast of Structure 2 throws new light on
the troughs that were uncovered in 1996 and
1998, since it is obvious from their orientation
and stratigraphy that these features belong to-
gether. What relationship these features had
with Phase 2 of Structure 2 remains unclear,
but it is certain that they all predate the con-
struction of the Enclosure’s circuit wall, and it
may be that they all served a common purpose,
forming part of a larger complex. The inter-
pretation of these findings is still in the prelim-
inary stages, but it may be suggested tentatively
that this complex could have served as a Byzan-
tine dye works, tannery, or fullers’ installation.
The sequence of buildings and occupation
layers within the Enclosure is now much clearer
than it was in 1998, when it was suggested that
Structure 2 might be contemporary with the
construction of the Enclosure’s circuit or defen-
sive wall. This year’s work in the area desig-
nated as Trench XD has proved conclusively
that Structure 2 predates the Enclosure wall.
The excavations have also shown that Structure
49
Cf. DOP 55 (2001): 385 and 399, fig. J.
292 THE AMORIUM PROJECT: RESEARCH AND EXCAVATION IN 2000
2 was not a simple square tower, but a much
larger rectangular building that extends fur-
ther to the southwest. Since it was argued in
1998 that Structure 2 belonged to Stratum IV,
we can now identify three major building
phases within the area of Trenches XC and XD.
The earliest saw the construction of Structure 1
(in Stratum VII), to which Structure 2 was later
added, while in the third phase came the addi-
tion of the Enclosure’s circuit wall. The align-
ment of the northeast wall (W13) of Structure 2
with the channel or drain and the row of
troughs in Trench XB implies that these fea-
tures were all laid out as part of the same plan
and even formed part of the same complex.
Their construction may not necessarily have
been contemporaneous, but the fact that the
Enclosure’s circuit wall was built immediately
on top of them suggests that they all fell out of
use at the same time. There is no evidence to
suggest that either Structure 2 or the troughs
had been abandoned and covered with a signif-
icant layer of deposit before the circuit wall was
built.
Further work is now required in the area out-
side the Enclosure to see if more of Structure 2
exists there in the same way that part of a
trough appeared in Trench XA outside the cir-
cuit wall in 1996.50 It is, therefore, planned to
extend Trench XA to the southwest during the
2001 field season. Another objective in the
coming year is to excavate more of Structure 1
by enlarging Trench XC in a northwesterly di-
rection. In this way it is hoped to clarify the na-
50
DOP 52 (1998): 328, and figs. C and 14.
ture and function of the buildings that stood in
this central area of the site before the construc-
tion of the Enclosure.51 It would also seem likely
that they could provide the best opportunity
for investigating occupational levels belonging
to the Byzantine Dark Ages.
It remains uncertain what function the En-
closure itself served and to what uses the build-
ings within it were put after its construction,
although it is clear that these changed dra-
matically when the Enclosure wall was super-
imposed on part of Structure 2. It seems in-
creasingly more certain that the Enclosure with
its massive circuit wall was laid out during
middle Byzantine times, that is, after the siege
and sack of Amorium in 838. The defensive ap-
pearance of the circuit wall is all the more strik-
ing now that a greater length of its inner face
has been exposed, reaffirming the view that
its construction was probably an imperial or
state initiative. The creation of the Enclosure
may thus be associated with the renewed im-
portance of Amorium as a military post on
one of the principal highways across Anato-
lia. Despite the lack of literary references, Amo-
rium may have served a strategic purpose as
a staging-post, muster-point or winter head-
quarters for the large-scale Byzantine raids into
Cilicia during the reign of Basil I.52
51
For a brief outline of the findings in 2001, see Light-
foot, “Amorium 2001,” 9.
52
See M. Whittow, The Making of Byzantium, 600–1025
(Berkeley, 1996), 314.